Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Wikinews/Vote

< Wikinews
Other languages:
English · Deutsch · English · español · français · italiano · português · română · Tiếng Việt · 한국어 · 日本語 · 中文

The Wikinews vote is now closed. Further edits to this page will be reverted. The demo site that was approved at demo.wikinews.org prior to a formal Board decision being made about the project now redirects to the English Wikinews.

Voting rules:

  1. Voting starts on October 22, 2004, 20:00 UTC. You can still translate the voting page and the proposal page into other languages.
  2. To vote, you need a registered account here on Meta, or sign with a link to a user page on the wiki you work on (e.g. [[:En:User:Eloquence]]).
  3. Voting will end on on November 12, 2004, 20:00 UTC.
  4. The proposal needs a majority in order to be passed to the board for consideration.
  5. If, after one week of voting, there is more than 90% of overall agreement, the project can be launched immediately.

You can only vote once - so please only place your vote on the language page of your choice! Please read the full Wikinews proposal before voting.

You can ask questions about Wikinews on the #wikinews IRC channel (irc.freenode.net).

See Wikinews/Vote/All to see all voting pages transcluded into one page.

Oct 26 update: Please participate in the Wikinews/License straw poll (non-binding).

Oct 27 update: There was a discussion session today, 20:00 UTC, on irc.freenode.net, #wikinews. The log is at Wikinews/IRC meeting Oct 27

Please note: The vote counts will be aggregated from all languages. A global majority is needed.

Should we launch the Wikinews project as described on Wikinews?

edit

Please note: You are only voting on the five basic requirements as described on that page, and not on any specific policy to implement these requirements.

Yes

edit
  1. Punboy November 10th. This is a great idea, definitely make "current event" assignments easier in school.
  2. w:User:Dino Gracio November 6. I like to see the world’s new age with constructives possibilities of interaction as possible.
  3. w:User:AaronSw November 6. I'm a little concerned about totally freezing articles -- at a minimum they should allow for annotation (e.g. with corrections and links to followups and so on). And I still don't believe in NPOV.
  4. User:dserra November 5.
  5. User:MacGyverMagic November 3.
  6. Gerard Braad 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) But I think it is also good to start a WikiDirectory to start a service similar to DMOZ.org but which is really up to date.
  7. En:User:Ce garcon. 11:08, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. Eloquence 20:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. Angela 20:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. Fredrik 20:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. Mathias Schindler 20:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. Jacoplane 20:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. Mirv 20:37, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  14. dennis_krueger 09:52, 22 Oct 2004 (PDT) We need more sources of trusted news to supplement blogs and commercial media.
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  15. -- Grunt 20:56, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
  16. Jimbo Wales - would I ever vote against world domination? Jimbo Wales 21:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  17. Kpjas 22:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  18. Erik Zachte 23:20, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  19. Roberth 00:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    You did not login for voting, no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  20. Inciteful 20:17 22 Oct 2004 (CST)
  21. Youssefsan 02:24, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  22. Delirium 03:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  23. Ambi 07:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  24. Gennady 08:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  25. BenM 08:10, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  26. Garrone 08:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
    I'm registered on meta, why do you say not? Garrone
  27. the bellman - im still interested in how referencing is going to be done (esp. for this project but also for other wikimedia projects)
  28. Wolfram 11:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  29. If this turns out well, we can import information from Wikinews to Wikipedia and back. Neutrality 15:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  30. Decagon 16:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  31. Arne (akl) 16:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    -Wins oddf - The recent events section on Wikipedia's main page isn't enough.
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. +sj+
    -68.0.92.136 17:24, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Note - we can't count this vote unless the user signs with his username.--Eloquence
  32. DavidLevinson 18:10, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  33. TalkHard 18:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) - Even if it starts off slow, well written articles will get posted around the net always bringing new people.
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  34. Codeman 20:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) - Might as well have a go.
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  35. Anthony DiPierro 20:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) Why in the world would anyone oppose this?
  36. en:User:Vacuum Oct 23, 2004 - I'm not sure this will work, but there's no reason not to try.
  37. Mats Halldin 20:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) A wiki is a wiki is a wiki - it will work! :)
  38. Johan Dahlin 20:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  39. Väsk 21:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) I'm really loocking forward to it!
  40. PointBlank 22:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) Need to make sure the enthusiasm is retained, there's much more than editing here!
  41. TUF-KAT 23:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  42. Conti 03:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  43. bdesham 04:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  44. Radagast 04:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) - It's worth a shot, no matter how well it eventually does.
  45. Alexandre Dulaunoy Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:16:37 +0000 - Yes but news are very short-term information...
  46. Golbez 10:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) - Gonna have growing pains, going to need to work out specific policy, but why the hell not.
  47. François Obada 10:33, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) - It would be a good complement to all the Wikimedia project, even if I'm a bit skeptical about the short-term aspect. But why not ? :)
  48. Lankiveil 10:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) - I'm not sure if this will work or not, but as far as I'm concerned, it's worth a try.
  49. oscar 11:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) very excited about this!
  50. //softssa 20:02, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  51. Yann 20:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  52. Astronouth7303 23:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) - I would love to have a NPOV on the US presedential race. (not that it would be set up in time for that)
  53. Chira 23:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) It's high time we opened the news process to the participation of normal people. The potential benefits of success are huge-- I suspect mainstream media is rarely neutral POV with all the special interests and politics.
  54. Borofkin 23:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  55. Dejitarob 00:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) - This has some great potential. I'm sure all the kinks will get worked out and I can't wait to contribute.
  56. Lord Bob 23:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) - This is too good an idea not to have.
  57. Isomorphic 00:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) - With one caveat. I think every Wikinews language should spend a while as just a news digest, with no original reporting. The communities will have plenty of issues to work through and policies to set before trying to tackle that one.
    Um... that's what the Current Events page on the Wikipedias are for. KirbyMeister
  58. Den fjättrade ankan 03:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  59. IZAK 05:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  60. -81.70.91.207 07:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    This vote cannot be counted unless the user logs in.--Eloquence
    It is me - Andre Engels 14:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  61. Johnleemk 08:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  62. Dittaeva 12:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  63. Waerth 13:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC), I got some doubts but than again, if we haven't tried we will never know
  64. Guaka 13:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    -130.235.188.125 17:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    This vote cannot be counted unless the user logs in.--Eloquence
  65. Uncle Ed Sorry, having trouble logging in.
  66. Aldous 23:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Absolutely.
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  67. w:Goobergunch 23:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  68. Jacius 02:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) -- It's definitely worth a try. More detailed comments on my user page.
  69. —siroχo 04:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  70. TheAL 22:20, Oct 25, 2005 - I think this is a fantastic idea, because Wikipedia is already better than any other enclopedia out there, imagine what WikiNews will do to news. I would love to be a "Wiki journalist". Another upside to this would be since anyone registered can edit the WIki content, if a member accidently makes a spelling/grammar mistake is could be easily corrected.
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
    -Tejas
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. +sj+
  71. Ste 09:19, 26 Oct 2004 (CEST)
  72. Haslo 10:17, 26 Oct 2004 (CEST)
  73. u07ch 10:57, 26 Oct 2004 - I have reservations, especially editorial ones but you never know what will work till you try it.
  74. El Chico | Talk 12:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) — Excellent idea! We've been needing WikiNews for a while now, to eliminate the wars we have over En:Template:In the news. It ought to do us some good!
  75. James F. (talk) 12:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) But of course.
  76. [[User:mrbill[Bill B.]] 7:52, Oct. 26 2004. Definitely.
  77. Bshort 14:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) - Most definitely
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  78. --Blacklite 14:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) It will definitely take some hammering-out, but I think it is a good idea. The principles look sound.
  79. Elizabeth 14:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) Yes. Definitely. Just within my own small geographic region alone, I see so many newsworthy things happening that will never be covered in the traditional media. It would be great to have a place where people could find out about these more obscure events.
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  80. rjs 15:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  81. Stuart Homfray 15:43, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC) Isn't this one of the major points of the internet? News BY the people, FOR the people!
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  82. artmomz 16:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) I think it's worth a shot.
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  83. Hemanshu 16:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  84. blacksardine 09:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) Let's see - a free, completely open, always-changing, anybody-can-do-it news source? Bring the noise!
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  85. Chris Hansen 16:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) I think it is a great idea - sort of like a community blogging effort.
    You did not login for voting, no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  86. Kempleton 16:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) Wonderful idea. now if only we could get a wikipedia api going that people writing desktop clients could skin... hmm.
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  87. jbond 17:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  88. User:Corqspy 19:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) YAY! NEWS! YAY! Seriously - Wikipedia has such a great news "front" already, just as a reference site, I can't wait t see a dedicated news effort. My vote: YES YES YES.
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  89. User:Downes Yes
  90. User:The_silentist Absolutely. Kind of a huge-co-authored newsblog. News I've read on Wikipedia has been terrific in the past, lets do it!.
  91. eidosabi - Another skeptical yes, but a yes nonetheless. So, feel free to prove us skeptics wrong.
  92. User:DigitalDave - Yes, looking forward to it.
    -User:Lorrimer - Yes, definitely. Though the accreditation process will need a lot more thought.
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. +sj+
    -User:Greg - Yes, absolutely.
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on.--Eloquence
  93. User:Aubrew - Yes.
    -User:Lindon - of course!
    You did not login for voting, no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on.--Eloquence
    -User:Khosro - YES!
    You did not login for voting, no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on.--Eloquence
  94. User:jlb1982 - This is an absolute paradigm shift! Yes! Free the news from the need to make money!
  95. User:dqmillar - Absolutely.
  96. User:pgptag - YES because this is clearly the future of distributed participative media. But of course the devil is in the details and a lot will depend on the implementation.
  97. gwendal 07:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) - Yes
    -User:wrpreacher - by all means, YES
    You did not login for voting, no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. +sj+
  98. Gerritholl 11:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) - I don't expect it to work, but it's worth a try.
  99. GerardM 14:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) from small acorns big trees grow :)
  100. User:Williamcraig - I'm a journalist, and skeptical of both the possibility and the desirability of "neutrality" in reporting. What we leave in and leave out, even the order in which we present facts, are as much "editorializing" as the most overt statements of "bias." But "neutrality" or "objectivity" is a construct that journalists, subjects and readers agree to accept, however vaguely, in order to make social cooperation possible. Wikinews will undoubtedly arrive at its own working definition of this polite fib -- and I look forward to seeing its evolution.
  101. fno - 18:00, 27 Oct 2004 (CET)
  102. Yes, a great idea. Ludraman 16:31, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  103. What's the worst that could happen? Dillenger69 10:11, 27 Oct 2004 (PST)
  104. 119
  105. Ta bu shi da yu 07:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  106. --Tmh 12:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  107. jakemus
  108. Ultramancool - The more wikimedia networks there are the more free the world will be!
  109. sasquatch
  110. Jeff8765 23:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  111. Sawbones 23:51, 28 Oct 2004 (EST) The need for more objective reporting is critical at this juncture in the world.
  112. Hell yes. --Fjarlq 09:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  113. CGorman 10:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) - Why now! It just might work.
    ariw 9:46, Oct 2004 (EST) major news providers are already looking at doing this... better it be indi!!!
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. +sj+
  114. HarmonicSphere Definitely! Sure beats the conventional media... and why, as H. L. Mencken said, should freedom of the press be limited to those who own one? Also, if we were to scrap this project on the basis that articles aren't "definitive," as at least one "No" vote suggests, wouldn't we have to scrap the whole idea of journalism? What news article is ever perfectly definitive, complete and utterly unbiased?
  115. Nadavspi 22:21, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  116. KirbyMeister 01:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) When can you set it up?
  117. Yiango 11:28, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  118. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]]
  119. http://www.tjacobi.com - Great idea! Do it!
  120. Blerten Very jazzed - hope to help, if only proofreading-wise;-)
  121. Mattworld 21:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  122. AppleBoy 22:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) Will be very glad to help, hope this project works :) See you guys in #wikinews
  123. Cabalamat mw 00:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC). This is a good idea and i hope this project succeeds. There are potential problems with it, e.g. legal issues, and also the timeliness of news stories once they have been editted for NPOV, but I believe we can resolve these problems.
  124. Cautiously. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  125. Rainbird 03:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)Yes - the miraculous effect of the wiki in society ought to show itself here with the daily politica and legal stuff in our world as well.
  126. User:wesleyb 07:55, 01 Nov 2004 It will be interesting to see what type of news will be presented when the primary objective of the site presenting the news is to present the news and not sell advertising space.
  127. It would have to be GFDL though, so we can incorporate it into wikipedia eventually. --217.61.146.21 14:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  128. Kiand 19:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  129. De:User:Dreighton--213.23.144.202 08:53, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  130. MilesTeg 14:07, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  131. Clay 14:45, 4 Nov 2004 (KOR)
  132. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 09:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) Yes and let's provide a Portuguese version. I am Luciano Martins Costa, journalist and writer, and I am just planning an online participative news site.
  133. User:avir 14:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) Absolutely - it will give a good place to keep current-event type stories separate from Wikipedia, besides providing a good source of general news!
  134. richard 19:24, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) Yes! Already the blogging community is providing some excellent news reporting; with concentration of corporate media in few hands, this kind of responsible collaboration may keep us free.
  135. Virtualblackfox 00:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) One more source of information can't be bad !
  136. Ilya 14:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) Yes, but as a test at first.
  137. --Piotrus 23:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) Why not? The idea is as sound as any other Wiki project and can be considered an extention of w:Current_events. If it flies of fails...it is up to the future contributors to decide, not us.
  138. Jrincayc 15:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  139. Mitch Owen 15:28 7 Nov 2004 {UTC}
  140. En:User:Jonpin 07:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  141. elykyllek 05:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  142. Basically NPOV blogging. Sounds wonderful. Andrevan 14:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  143. GoGi 19:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  144. Hey, someone stole my thunder. Just one caveat, wikinews should get a running start. Ie: no press releases, no advertising, just a very very very quiet slow trickle as google starts archiving our articles. This will allow time to set up slowly and get the kinks outKim Bruning 01:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  145. Garrett Albright — Here's hoping it can be a great source of international news.
  146. Ja:User:March 10:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  147. Yes: Dmismir 18:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  148. I came up with this idea 15 minutes ago, and then discovered that this proposal existed! So despite some misgivings about how the publication process might work, and taking energy from other Wiki, and duplicating Indymedia, and legal issues... I can hardly vote against it. However, I would say that most of the potential risks (eg not enough time to establish NPOV) that have been discussed would be much reduced if at least initially Wikinews thought of itself as a weekly or monthly Journal, with an appropriate publication cycle, and not as a Wiki version of Google News. Anyway, let's give it a try. Rd232 20:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  149. --Joelnackman 03:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  150. Ru:Участник:Kneiphof 15:28, 12 Nov 2004 (cet)
  151. DCLXVI 14:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No

edit

# Hemanshu 20:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) - see Talk:Wikinews for rationale

  1. En:User Fred Bauder
  2. Dori | Talk 22:56, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Alexandre Van de Sande 14:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) No or at least not yet - see Talk:Wikinews
  4. superm401Daily news just doesn't provide the necessary time for collaboration. News would be out of date before it was accurate and complete.
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  5. Wellparp 20:10, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) - I think we should start only with the english wikinews. Too many projects in the smaller languages risk to spread out the participants too much.
    Do you agree to shut down Swedish Wiktionary until we are "finished" with en.? I know this isn't the right place to discuss but have you ever considered that there might be people who wouldn't participate at all if there were no projects in their language? -- Mathias Schindler 20:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Kzhr - Chinese government will shut wikimedia up cheerfully because of this project.
    "If we can't have free speech, nobody else can"?--Eloquence
    I don't usually comment on others' voting, but what sort of a reason is that! Just because the Chinese government wants to take the way of censorship, why should the rest of the world suffer? If you don't want a Chinese Wikinews, that's fine, but, really, this is a strange reason. Ronline 07:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Of course, you're entitled to your own vote, no pressure on that).
    The point was that news is more likely to be banned by China, and China will just ban all Wikimedia projects because of it. Hence, we can scrap the Chinese Wikipedia, since native Chinese would never be able to access it. -- user:zanimum
    If the Communist Party doesn`t like what the Wikimedia community decides to do and blocks Wikipedia entirely, that is their decision. I don`t see why that need affect the decision to launch or not to launch Wikinews. --Ce garcon 05:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Ce garcon)
    I see some point. Perhaps it would be more efficient to separate WikiNews from Wikipedia in some way. 203.160.1.66 14:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    While i disagree that we should cancel wikinews due to this, i would like to point out it is very easy for someone in the west to sit back and say that this is a stupid reason, but quite different for a wikimedian who actually lives in china. The bellman 07:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    When we launch Wikinews, which we no doubt will, I say we should definetly have Chinese "Wikinewses". However, just know that we are essentially making ourselves more tempting for China to block. If they block the whole Wikimedia family of sites, the Chinese Wikipedias, Wikiquotes, Wikisources, whatever, will all stagnate, with a small percentage of Chinese Wikimedians left. -- user:zanimum
  7. A-giâu 06:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) - It seems likely the project will mostly replicate the perspectives of the few mega-media sources out there (e.g. AFP, AP, Reuters, BBC, CNN...), for the practical reason that many significant news events will be inaccessible to current Wikipedians.
  8. Wanted 09:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) - it's better to shift resources to make existing projects (esp. Wikipedia) run smooth, than spoil them for more and more projects which all would run slow
  9. Anthere 13:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. Mormegil 14:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) - I see no advantage that wiki-based news would have. I don't think wiki is a good method for news reporting. But I do see (=am able to imagine) disadvantages that associating Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation with such a news site would have.
  11. RoseParks 17:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. Shaihulud 19:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. Kaihsu 20:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC): Maybe Jimbo was not joking when he said "would I ever vote against world domination?"
  14. Maximus Rex 02:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  15. Joi 06:50, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  16. Iorsh 19:20, 25 Oct 2004 (JST) - If an obscure item like Iridology almost ignited an apocalypsis, imagine what would happen on the hot news issues... Noble wikipedians will fly around the world just to kill each one another personally.
  17. Jxg 16:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    You did not login for voting, no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
    probably from en:
  18. Jeffdelonge 19:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    -WCityMike 23:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    You did not login for voting, no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. +sj+
  19. Hapsiainen 23:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) - NPOV and quick news writing don't match.
  20. Couillon 05:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) - Not yet: server load issues, it's a distraction at a critical time, failure could bring down crediblity
  21. Sam Hocevar 08:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  22. piro 13:20, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  23. +sj+ 12:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) A separate project for news summaries would be superb; original reporting, like original research, should be put off until that is well established. (see Talk)
  24. Isaackelley 13:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) just a bad idea, sorry to say.
  25. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 19:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) 19:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) bad idea...
    -64.222.211.199 22:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) sorry to say but this screams NPOV/RV wars.
    No username provided, vote cannot be counted.--Eloquence
  26. Looxix 23:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC): while I think that a online communauty of benevolent can effectively be quite good at the redaction of encyclopedia, books, and others things where time doesn't really matter; I really don't think that the same can be achieve for quickly create articles on recent actuality. I also have strong difficulties to see how NPOV will be preserved. And, of course, I'm strongly opposed to the protection of articles some time after their creation: it's totally anti-wiki.
  27. Daniel Mayer (aka mav) 23:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) (reasons: some of Erik's ideas about having different article versions endorsed by different POV groups scares me, Anthere's opposition to Wikinews as proposed, and the possibility of drawing update attention away from keeping the encyclopedia up-to-date -- In the long term I do support the basic idea of having a Wikinews project)
    Just to clarify, having different article versions .. is neither part of the Wikinews proposal nor the Thinktank page.--Eloquence
  28. Danny 23:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  29. Maha_ts 13:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) - see Talk:Wikinews for rationale
  30. ✏ Sverdrup 11:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) I tipped over to No, mostly because we have lots of other newly started projects to get going first. (Commons, species). While lots of people have done a great work on an expansive and detailed proposal, I can't believe in an egoless, moderated NPOV model.
  31. MichelleG 11:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) No, for the reasons I discussed here: [1]
  32. Fantasy 容 11:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) Sorry, but as much as I love the idea, the legal implications and risks are IMHO currently far too high. In the long term it will come out of Wikipedia anyway, be sure of that, but now it is too soon. There is absolutely no need to rush.
  33. .mau. I do not think wikipedia has sufficient mass to embark in such a task.
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
    Just created the user page here, which points to it.wikipedia.org. --.mau. 12:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    .omnivorous. Having worked as a professional journalist, the job of covering a news story is impossible to deem complete: it consists of many small stories, depending on perspectives of individuals or disciplines. For example, what's the real story of the Microsoft antitrust cases? Will they ever be complete? Isn't really a story of economics and legal structure in a capitalist society? But why then is Steve Ballmer's heavy commitment to the Republican Party pertinent? Wikipedia's been VERY effective at the long perspective but I don't believe has the resources to be effective in "news".
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. Anthere
  34. MikyT 16:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    PZFUN 17:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) There's still too much work to be done on Wikipedia before pulling more resources away to this page when there are so many previously existant news sources.
    no user account here on Meta. Please point to the Wikimedia project you are working on. +sj+
  35. Romary 09:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)~
  36. Dbabbitt 11:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) No, unless the project is allowed to morph into some unexpected subset of daily news which decreases the bandwidth requirements and lessens the legal risks.
  37. Spikeballs - Gotta stay focused till Wikipedia is more complete.
  38. tsca
  39. Cyrius -- I don't think it'll work, and we already have a hard time attracting contributors to non-Wikipedia projects as it is.
  40. M/
  41. ShaneKing 14:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) Would rather do this within the normal wikipedia, where articles can continue to grow as new information comes to light and can be crosslinked to other information. If you need to cite a specific version, that's what history is for!
  42. Approaching NPOV is difficult enough on encyclopedia articles where we have unlimited time at our hands. I can't see how such a short-lived item as a news story can be polished enough to be reliable and NPOV. Show me a way to do it and I'll change my vote. Kosebamse 17:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  43. geni
  44. Pe.nataf 20:54, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) I think we would better focuse on the encyclopedia wich is already a good source for news
  45. Andrea MWhile people are free to do whatever they wish with their time, it is not a good idea to encourage waste of resources. Can you imagine the flamewars for what makes it to the front page? Are we going to vote on that too? Not everything has to be collaborative and open source.
  46. Ma'ame Michu 19:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) – Instead of launching misty projects (wikinews), some would be better inspired to work to help the existing projects correctly work. (I apologize for the Google translation). I first voted on Wikinews/Vote/Fr and deleted it for voting here. See also: commentaires additionnels
  47. Guaca Sounds too ambitious and timeconsuming.
  48. pne 05:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  49. Lexor 15:33, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC) For similar reasons as given by mav. Possibility for major diversion/forking.
  50. Quistnix 22:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) It is better to work on the ongoing projects first, and start new projects later.
  51. Elian from a yes with a headache I changed to a no. I think that the struggle for NPOV and the desired actuality of wikinews are excluding each other. This project can't reach both.
  52. --Ausir 22:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  53. I propose a motto: Fair & Balanced. No, sorry, for good reporting you need a good command of the relevance of all the facts. You cannot simply add information bit by bit like we do for the pedia, but you need an overview the make the crucial decisions. Bontenbal 08:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  54. Rmhermen 15:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) I fear it would syphon off to much of the effort from the encyclopedia.
  55. Tooto, effort would be better spent improving other projects wikipedia:User:tooto
  56. Henrygb:A distraction - impossible to keep accurate, NPOV, and up-to-date at the same time. 22:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  57. Aphaia 04:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) I withdrew my affermative vote; basically I think this project has a noble purpose and I respect it, but from two major reasons I oppose to start it now. First three new projects (or four including Wikiversity) are too many for us in my opinion, Second during this vote my afraid was grown if Wikinews would attract many good will but careless people and they would cause troubles. I would like to have a good enough preperation for avoiding any troubles, specially legal threats.
  58. Donarreiskoffer 14:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC), I think we need first more maturity in other projects.
  59. --Fanghong 23:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)News is difficulty to maintain objectiveness and justice,even professional news agencies are always controlled by their sponsors. In the free Wiki news would cause a lot of quarrels. From above their are already different opinions. News should not avoid the political dispute.
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews/Vote&oldid=3699975"